Danish Imams, having failed to intimidate the Danish PM into punishing Jyllands-Posten, are turning to the UN for sympathy and suing the Danish newspaper. Their charges are really outlandish:
Danish Muslim groups are to report Denmark to the UN Commissioner on Human Rights for failing to prosecute the newspaper that first published controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
The 27 Muslim groups also plan to sue the newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, for defamation in a Danish court, according to their lawyer, Michael Christiani Havemann."Denmark is obliged through the UN to secure the civil rights of its citizens," Havemann said by telephone. "The national prosecutor won't pursue the case and, therefore, acts as a barrier to justice to the complainants."
The complainants are charging defamation. Let me guess what their argument is going to be. Muhammad is their beloved prophet. When he is defamed, Islam is defamed. When Islam is defamed, they as Muslims are defamed.
Hat tip: LGF
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
World
Comments (13)
Just out of curiosity, when... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Omni | March 17, 2006 5:49 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Just out of curiosity, when do all the insults THEY hurl at everyone who's NOT Muslim become "defaming"... or can only THEY be insulted, and only WE cause offense?
(grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr)
1. Posted by Omni | March 17, 2006 5:49 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2006 17:49
2. Posted by Robert | March 17, 2006 5:52 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So, does that mean that the family of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl can sue those Muslims and assumable their countries of citizenship for their murders? Can Jews sue the Germans for the holocaust?
2. Posted by Robert | March 17, 2006 5:52 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2006 17:52
3. Posted by Rod Stanton | March 17, 2006 6:25 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
As I have said for over 50 years the UN is a tool of opression not of freedom. This is the umpteenth example of how the UN opresses people.
Not as exciting as "Food for Oil" or some of the opressive programs run by Butgros Butros Good Golly Miss Molly but it shows how the UN is exactly the opposite of what HST, Marshall and Churchill intended it to be 60 years ago.
Old Scotch expression "The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions." UN and LoN are perfect examples of the Road to Hell.
3. Posted by Rod Stanton | March 17, 2006 6:25 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2006 18:25
4. Posted by Billll | March 17, 2006 8:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I think the word wanting to be here is not 'defamed', but 'exposed'.
4. Posted by Billll | March 17, 2006 8:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2006 20:57
5. Posted by Mikey | March 17, 2006 8:58 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Defamation? I thought truth was an absolute defense to defamation.
5. Posted by Mikey | March 17, 2006 8:58 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2006 20:58
6. Posted by Dodo David | March 17, 2006 9:36 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Denmark is obliged through the U.N.?
When did Denmark give up its sovereignty?
6. Posted by Dodo David | March 17, 2006 9:36 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2006 21:36
7. Posted by wavemaker | March 17, 2006 10:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Omni...relax...it's "the adversary" that's talking. He speaks in riddles.
7. Posted by wavemaker | March 17, 2006 10:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2006 22:11
8. Posted by Tim | March 17, 2006 10:20 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I guess this means I have to rewrite that Roadrunner cartoon where Muhammad straps an ACME rocket to his back to get a quick lunch.
8. Posted by Tim | March 17, 2006 10:20 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 17, 2006 22:20
9. Posted by Synova | March 18, 2006 1:47 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Not everywhere, Mikey.
Part of the inprocessing to Clark AB was a warning that defamation of character counted even if what you said was true, because the person you said it to may not have *known* that the person you called a scum-sucking theiving bastard was a scum-sucking theiving bastard.
(We were also told not to run over any hens and for god's sake not to run over a rooster... but that's another story.)
I think that radical Islam is operating within the same sort of parameters... but with more violence.
Speaking the truth is no defense if it embarasses those willing to resort to violence. Look at what happens to Arabs or Moslems who dare to speak out.
9. Posted by Synova | March 18, 2006 1:47 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2006 01:47
10. Posted by Faith+1 | March 18, 2006 6:15 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well, as stupid and assinine as suing is, if the Muslims had started off their protesting the cartoons via that method rather than rioting and ranting and making death threats worldwide they would have garnered a tad more respect.
Suing over a perceived insult (real or otherwise) is a hell of a lot more civilized response than the ones they had.
10. Posted by Faith+1 | March 18, 2006 6:15 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2006 06:15
11. Posted by Tim | March 18, 2006 6:35 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That's the beauty of being a radical muslim. You riot in the streets, burn everything down, THEN sue. And when they ask if you were part of the rioting, you just say..."oh no, that was the other guys. I'm just here to sue."
11. Posted by Tim | March 18, 2006 6:35 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2006 06:35
12. Posted by wavemaker | March 18, 2006 9:05 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The case may have a shot if he hires an American tort lawyer.
12. Posted by wavemaker | March 18, 2006 9:05 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2006 09:05
13. Posted by wavemaker | March 18, 2006 9:06 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The case may have a shot if he hires an American tort lawyer.
13. Posted by wavemaker | March 18, 2006 9:06 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 18, 2006 09:06